Thursday, May 31, 2012

The defense team in the trial of Anders Behring Breivik has built a carefully constructed a political show trial with the full co-operation of the Norwegian system of “justice”. Yet over the past few days the architecture of this judicial farce has been crumbling at an astonishing rate.

Numerous “expert” witnesses have either refused to testify or have been excused by the court. The most recent to extend his polite regrets is Fjordman.

The list of witnesses shrinks: the latest to decline is Peder Nøstvold Jensen, alias Fjordman.

After some back and forth, there was talk that Jensen would testify via Skype. He has been abroad for some time, far away from Norway.

Now Fjordman has said that after the recent increasing complications he has decided to refuse to testify in any form.

Also: Mullah Krekar and Hanne Nabintu Herland no longer have to give testimony.

In related news, Fjordman sends this note about his recent correspondence with a leftist newspaper — is there any other kind? — in Norway:

I was contacted by email on May 29 by the journalist Tore Letvik from the Norwegian daily Dagsavisen. He noted that Gates of Vienna was doing a donation drive, and asked whether this indicated that this ideology has so few followers that it cannot even fund a blog.

I replied that his own newspaper receives something like forty million kroner every single year in government press subsidies just to stay afloat. Perhaps he and his colleagues shouldn’t talk too loudly about “sustainable ideologies”.

I reiterated my call for an end to all press subsidies, as well as the withdrawal of the license for NRK.

Needless to say, to date the newspaper has not published my response.

Concerning Dagsavisen: Gates of Vienna readers may remember that this newspaper has very close ties to the ruling Labor Party. Tore Letvik also wrote the notorious article in December 2011 claiming that I promote “the same” policies as the SS and Heinrich Himmler, the prime architect of the Holocaust.

Sorry but why is a newspaper receiving a government grant? That effectively makes it a propaganda arm promoting government policy - just like Pravda - does it not? Certainly no-one could call it "independent".